psicologização na cultura como fator patogenico

However, under neo-liberal governance, psychologisation appears to have gone back to it s normative roots — albeit in a new sense: according to the prevailing psychologised mentality, we simply ought to think about our lives, and explain human action, in terms drawn from an individualist psychology (we will provide an example that explains what we mean by this in due course).

The question of psychologisation can be related to the question of empowerment. Returning to De Vos‘s analysis, we can say that psychologisation must be seen as part of the modern Enlightenment idea that information and knowledge bring empowerment. The downside, according to De Vos, is that psychologisation also brings derealisation and an absence of desire. The capability of psychologisation to give meaning to everything means, in the long run, a loss of meaning. The psychological enchantment of the mind that followed the scientific disenchantment of the world, wears out and risks leading us to a more thorough and depressing disenchantment. This paradoxical effect can be understood through Lacanian theory: psychologisation appears to lead to less and less mystery outside the self, hence the individual loses interest (desire) in the on-going world. The result of all this is that the psychologised subject is left without any firm ground to stand on. The contemporary epidemics of psychological problems may be a result of being made ill by a psychologised and medicalised society, which promises happiness and wellbeing (De Vos, 2008). This paradox can be explained through psychologisation. De Vos describes this situation in terms of the a priori psychological subject — the child of the Enlightenment is a reflexive subject by definition. Its job is to be more assertive, develop its personality, enhance its coping capabilities, and strengthen its social network.